No, you'll never start listening to mainstream scientists or stop lapping up the garbage fed to you by crackpots. Why pretend otherwise, unless you're the most epic troll in history? I've already shown you this NAS report listing current effects we've seen, but as usual you just plugged your ears and ran back to WUWT.
Please quote, from that document, mentions of actual effects we're already seeing. I haven't noticed any that haven't been refuted by recent scientific papers.
This is the same NAS of which I caught you not long ago cherry-picking quotes which supported your agenda, when in fact the entire paragraph and subsequent paragraph actually supported what I had asserted.
Why don't you go away? You have proven yourself incapable of making a real argument of any substance, and instead just harass people whose views you don't like. We've been seeing this for 6 or more years now. Amazing that no matter how many times you lose, you just keep the shit up.
Someone burns it in a million years. If they don't, it will be exposed by geologic processes in another million years or so, and converted to methane or CO2 by bacteria, to the benefit of nobody.
So what's your point? That it's being unearthed too fast?
The timescale is only relevant as it pertains to its effects.
Please list current effects we've seen. If you can, then I might start listening.
Prepare yourself to one day anticipate a conclusion that might be mildly interesting.
Thanks Slashdot! But why didn't you post a story warning us we might someday see this story (about what we might someday know -- about some stuff that happened a million years ago)?
I think Slashdot itself is pretty good evidence that we have evolved a lot slower than we like to think.
Historically, apprenticeship programs were simply formalized excuses for abuse of employees.
The "Masters" of a trade would take on apprentices, whom the masters would train over time... a very long, very excruciating time. Because the apprentices would have to do the majority of the heavy labor, while the "secrets" of the craft were doled out in a stingy and piecemeal manner... because actually letting the apprentice become a journeyman and then master meant 2 negative things: (1) they would lose the use of the apprentice's nearly-slave labor, and (2) the apprentice would eventually become competition for the master.
Thus were Guilds born, and the Masters did everything in their power to delay the learning and experience of the journeymen, and the journeymen of the apprentices.
While it may have started out as a good idea, it always devolves into those with experience and $$ taking advantage of those who don't.
Society would probably be much better off sending them to apprenticeships for manual or semi-skilled labor, where the urge to lord it over others is less rife with potential for abuse.
It seems that the simplest solution is to wait. And hope that Google survives various future and as-yet-unknown disruptive technologies.
Frankly, I think the simplest solution is to copy Google. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. It sounds like a rather promising prospect for a good, real non-profit.
I must say, I am one of those people who did not trust Google with this. I think time has borne me out. These days, I don't trust Google with much of anything. And they have nobody to blame but themselves for that.
You also won't discuss Twitter with anyone on Twitter, remember? You just call it a "debate" and say Twitter isn't suitable. But Slashdot doesn't have Twitter's character limits. So don't all your excuses sound pathetic even to you?
I discuss lots of things with lots of people on Twitter. I do not, however, discuss them with you. For reasons which should be obvious to anybody.
And here are some other things I will reply to, since you started this game of replying to comments in other topics. Unlike you, I do not (and will not) make a habit of this, but I'm replying here because I didn't even see this libelous comment until just now, and replies are now locked.
If Jane/Lonny Eachus really didn't know that he was wrong to claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, then he could easily show that by retracting his claim. But he still hasn't done that, even though he's had months to find the necessary few seconds. Why not, Jane?
Because to the best of my knowledge (which YOU prompted me to look up, by the way), none of them have. That guy name Manuel you found (I have no idea how) is not a "member", he is listed as a consultant. There's that attempt to insinuate guilt by association again.
Maybe Jane/Lonny just wrongly thought Latour was some kind of independent expert and didn't realize that (best case scenario) Latour had been brainwashed by the cult led by that psychopathic pedophile with the convicted child rapist member.
I think Mr. O'Sullivan would be interested to know about your claim that he is a "psychopathic pedophile", and again, you already know that your assertion a "member" of that organization is a "convicted child raper" is false. Even if that Manuel guy had been a member, he isn't a "convicted child raper". And since you saw the charges against him (YOU showed them to me!), you already know that.
But again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny Eachus was just honestly fooled by that cult as long as he refuses to retract his Slayer claims. Don't you want to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims?
I have nothing further to say to you about that which I have not already stated repeatedly, to you and to others, and I have no reason to repeat myself yet again. This assertion is completely baseless, and even if it were not, I don't owe you anything.
So once again you are proven to be lying. "Psychopathic pedophile" is not exactly a friendly phrase, and once again I have to wonder why you're using it, even for someone else, when I have no association with that group, and I personally do not know a single person, either in or out of that group, who has been shown to be a "psychotic pedophile" or "child raper".
So once again: what is your purpose for posting these proven lies, unless it is to try to defame me or imply guilt by association? You still haven't answered that question.
However, I will reply to something else you stated here on Slashdot:
It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave [slashdot.org] Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 [pik-potsdam.de], Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.
There are more recent papers (in 2013 and more recently) that debunk the debunkers. We could do that kind of back-and-forth forever. You've proved nothing.
The issue isn't settled. And as for "debunked for years", that's pretty hard to do. 2011 was not that long ago, and if I am not mistaken the original Humlum paper wasn't even actually published until 2012. So if "years" means 3 years, okay. But again, there have been more recent papers as well.
No, I'm not going to "debate" this with you. I was just pointing out some of the sillier things you wrote.
How does this have anything to do with the topic under discussion?
If you have specific objections to anything that was written, bring them up! Oh, but wait... I already told you I won't discuss Twitter with you on Slashdot. So never mind.
It's a new piece of software, a new income to deal with in accounting, a new security vector, a new expense, and all in all, a new headache that will bring merchants little to no added value. It's going to die just like all of the new payment methods that have come out recently and are due to come out so
Not to mention that I'd as soon sweep tiger cages for a living as do financial transactions through Google.
negative according to the study, since they still havent hit breakpoint.
I thought that was funny when I read your post, but actually you are right, according to the article China is still behind on the polluter curve. If new technology (fusion, batteries + wind) becomes viable, they may never hit breakpoint.
I think the study's methodology is highly suspect.
What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita.
The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon.
But what about the bitwise media, as opposed to the hardware media? OP asked about that as well.
It seems obvious that lossless compression is preferable to no compression, and an open-source algorithm should be used. (Like lossless PNGs for stills, FLAC for audio. Video is still kind of up for grabs, and one might have to settle for lossy compression.)
For very long-term storage, you'd want to have the source code for your decompression/display software.
M.disc, as opposed to standard CD or DVD, is expressly intended for long-term storage and retrieval.
Both are open-source. Both are completely public. But PBKDF2 has been through a completely public security audit. Bcrypt has not.
Someone trying to push public encryption standards that wouldn't pass audit won't get very far.
But government has pushed encryption standards that not only weren't openly audited, but not even publicly available for study.
Given a choice, which one would you trust? The guy who says "pick one of these", and let's you look at them and pick them up and feel them, or the guy who keeps them in a locked box and won't even show you to them first?
At some point you do have to trust somebody. But who?
Should you trust the coder in the next cubicle over who blindly swallowed stories about the "security" of bcrypt, without any actual evidence?
Or should you trust the government?
Or should you trust the private-sector experts, like Schneier or Adelman?
At some point you have to either study it in-depth yourself, or take someone's word for the ultimate security. But not JUST taking someone's word, and certainly just not coder X at some conference. You can get explanations of how open-source encryption works.
Nothing I did was "desperate", nor was I "regurgitating" Latour. Why do you lie so much?
Jane/Lonny Eachus hasn't retracted his endless Sky Dragon Slayer claims, and continues to spread Slayer misinformation.
Bullshit. What "slayer misinformation" do you pretend I "continue" to spread? Just another lie. You seem to have no respect for the truth whatsoever.
But that's probably asking the impossible
What is asking for the impossible, is asking me to stop doing something I'm not doing.
But that's probably asking the impossible, because Jane/Lonny Eachus is so brainwashed that he went above and beyond the call of duty by joining Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan in blaming his teenage victim, and wrongly insisted that none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer club) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing. If Jane/Lonny Eachus really isn't a Sky Dragon Slayer, at the very least he'd retract his mistaken claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, and admit that Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan is an admitted pedophile.
More blatant lies, with utter disregard to what you know to be the truth. Here were my actual words. The rest of your nonsense is links to other sources, or you quoting yourself again.
To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well.
Note the words "to the best of my knowledge". O'Sullivan had been accused of improper conduct, but was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. As for any other non-criminal conduct in his personal life, I have no knowledge or interest whatsoever.
Further, as I indicated to you, the only person of whom I was aware, who could possibly be the subject of your ranting was O'Sullivan. So imagine my surprise when you linked to a page about someone named Manuel who was completely unknown to me. Further yet, as I told you at the time, I had no idea who were "members" of the Sky Dragon Slayers, nor did I care, nor was I a member myself. So you knew all this, yet posted all this bullshit anyway.
So what is your point here? Some kind of attempt to show guilt by association? Some kind of attempt at sexual harassment? Because I have never so much as met any of these people, and I didn't even know of the existence of some of them until YOU pointed them out to me.
Jane, are you still confused about why you aced your hypocrisy final by bragging about how you've been desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others?
Another of your outrageous distortions. Mentioning that I discussed your legal transgressions with an attorney has absolutely nothing to do either bragging or censorship.
But as the Supreme Court has said many times, your "freedom of speech" is limited. You legally get to say whatever you want, about whoever you want, under any circumstances, with gross disregard for the truth.
As usual, you just whine that context is missing without explaining how you could possibly believe yourself when you said "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."
Nobody is whining. I am certainly accusing.
Many times, in many places, I have clearly stated that of course the ocean is rising. If in one time and one place you thought I meant something else, then the CONTEXT of that statement must have been misunderstood or missing. You already know I don't believe the ocean is not rising at all, but you use your out-of-context distortions to make it appear that I did. That's lying.
Don't you realize that being completely unwilling to back up your lies with actual calculations is indistinguishable from your being completely unable to perform even the most basic tests for acceleration in a dataset?
You cited Church and White, but I have more that say it ISN'T accelerating. I have many counterexamples, but I only need one. Church and White (2011) found a minuscule acceleration (0.009 cm / year ^-2), while others have found larger DEcelerations. Houston and Dean (2011), though their error bars are somewhat larger, Watson (2011), etc.
No dishonesty here. I have evidence for the things I say.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you'll never start listening to mainstream scientists or stop lapping up the garbage fed to you by crackpots. Why pretend otherwise, unless you're the most epic troll in history? I've already shown you this NAS report listing current effects we've seen, but as usual you just plugged your ears and ran back to WUWT.
Please quote, from that document, mentions of actual effects we're already seeing. I haven't noticed any that haven't been refuted by recent scientific papers.
This is the same NAS of which I caught you not long ago cherry-picking quotes which supported your agenda, when in fact the entire paragraph and subsequent paragraph actually supported what I had asserted.
Why don't you go away? You have proven yourself incapable of making a real argument of any substance, and instead just harass people whose views you don't like. We've been seeing this for 6 or more years now. Amazing that no matter how many times you lose, you just keep the shit up.
Mag stripe is so much worse. One only needs to record the track data with a microphone and then play it back to any card reader.
Nonsense. Magstripe is exploitable, but not at a distance as NFC has proved to be.
Apples and oranges. Mail-order oranges.
Someone burns it in a million years. If they don't, it will be exposed by geologic processes in another million years or so, and converted to methane or CO2 by bacteria, to the benefit of nobody.
So what's your point? That it's being unearthed too fast?
The timescale is only relevant as it pertains to its effects.
Please list current effects we've seen. If you can, then I might start listening.
I think you (despite hiding behind AC we know who you are), are quite excellent evidence of my thesis.
Decay is a slow 'burn'. We're just accelerating the process.
I wish more people would get this.
EVENTUALLY, rot and decay (which are obviously natural processes), and other natural processes will result in the same outcome.
The alarmists would like you to believe that if it happens because of humans, it is bad.
It doesn't get much simpler than that.
The "old-fashioned way" was deforestation. It happened across the world and only began to slow in the 20th century.
How does THAT Slashdot comment get labeled as anything but harassment and bullshit?
Off-topic, at least.
Prepare yourself to one day anticipate a conclusion that might be mildly interesting.
Thanks Slashdot! But why didn't you post a story warning us we might someday see this story (about what we might someday know -- about some stuff that happened a million years ago)?
I think Slashdot itself is pretty good evidence that we have evolved a lot slower than we like to think.
Historically, apprenticeship programs were simply formalized excuses for abuse of employees.
The "Masters" of a trade would take on apprentices, whom the masters would train over time... a very long, very excruciating time. Because the apprentices would have to do the majority of the heavy labor, while the "secrets" of the craft were doled out in a stingy and piecemeal manner... because actually letting the apprentice become a journeyman and then master meant 2 negative things: (1) they would lose the use of the apprentice's nearly-slave labor, and (2) the apprentice would eventually become competition for the master.
Thus were Guilds born, and the Masters did everything in their power to delay the learning and experience of the journeymen, and the journeymen of the apprentices.
While it may have started out as a good idea, it always devolves into those with experience and $$ taking advantage of those who don't.
Society would probably be much better off sending them to apprenticeships for manual or semi-skilled labor, where the urge to lord it over others is less rife with potential for abuse.
It seems that the simplest solution is to wait. And hope that Google survives various future and as-yet-unknown disruptive technologies.
Frankly, I think the simplest solution is to copy Google. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. It sounds like a rather promising prospect for a good, real non-profit.
I must say, I am one of those people who did not trust Google with this. I think time has borne me out. These days, I don't trust Google with much of anything. And they have nobody to blame but themselves for that.
There are simply too many variables involved for someone to write down the simple step-by-step instructions they seem to be asking for.
There is one point that is pretty much cast in stone: there is no such thing as "secure password recovery".
Maybe OP did not mean that literally, but if a password can be "recovered", it isn't secure. There is no way to have both.
Passwords are replaced using a reset process, not recovered.
You also won't discuss Twitter with anyone on Twitter, remember? You just call it a "debate" and say Twitter isn't suitable. But Slashdot doesn't have Twitter's character limits. So don't all your excuses sound pathetic even to you?
I discuss lots of things with lots of people on Twitter. I do not, however, discuss them with you. For reasons which should be obvious to anybody.
If Jane/Lonny Eachus really didn't know that he was wrong to claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, then he could easily show that by retracting his claim. But he still hasn't done that, even though he's had months to find the necessary few seconds. Why not, Jane?
Because to the best of my knowledge (which YOU prompted me to look up, by the way), none of them have. That guy name Manuel you found (I have no idea how) is not a "member", he is listed as a consultant. There's that attempt to insinuate guilt by association again.
Maybe Jane/Lonny just wrongly thought Latour was some kind of independent expert and didn't realize that (best case scenario) Latour had been brainwashed by the cult led by that psychopathic pedophile with the convicted child rapist member.
I think Mr. O'Sullivan would be interested to know about your claim that he is a "psychopathic pedophile", and again, you already know that your assertion a "member" of that organization is a "convicted child raper" is false. Even if that Manuel guy had been a member, he isn't a "convicted child raper". And since you saw the charges against him (YOU showed them to me!), you already know that.
But again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny Eachus was just honestly fooled by that cult as long as he refuses to retract his Slayer claims. Don't you want to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims?
I have nothing further to say to you about that which I have not already stated repeatedly, to you and to others, and I have no reason to repeat myself yet again. This assertion is completely baseless, and even if it were not, I don't owe you anything.
So once again you are proven to be lying. "Psychopathic pedophile" is not exactly a friendly phrase, and once again I have to wonder why you're using it, even for someone else, when I have no association with that group, and I personally do not know a single person, either in or out of that group, who has been shown to be a "psychotic pedophile" or "child raper".
So once again: what is your purpose for posting these proven lies, unless it is to try to defame me or imply guilt by association? You still haven't answered that question.
It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave [slashdot.org] Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 [pik-potsdam.de], Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.
There are more recent papers (in 2013 and more recently) that debunk the debunkers. We could do that kind of back-and-forth forever. You've proved nothing.
The issue isn't settled. And as for "debunked for years", that's pretty hard to do. 2011 was not that long ago, and if I am not mistaken the original Humlum paper wasn't even actually published until 2012. So if "years" means 3 years, okay. But again, there have been more recent papers as well.
No, I'm not going to "debate" this with you. I was just pointing out some of the sillier things you wrote.
USA will catch up some day, the rest of the world has a crap-load of contactless terminals. I bought my lunch using one half an hour ago.
If "catching up" means doing financial transactions via the current generation of RF protocols, I'd rather stay in the Stone Age, thanks very much.
Not that I'm a Luddite. I'm not. But they're not secure. Come a day when they are, I'll happily join in.
But I'll never give up cash, and that's a completely different can of worms.
How does this have anything to do with the topic under discussion?
If you have specific objections to anything that was written, bring them up! Oh, but wait... I already told you I won't discuss Twitter with you on Slashdot. So never mind.
It's a new piece of software, a new income to deal with in accounting, a new security vector, a new expense, and all in all, a new headache that will bring merchants little to no added value. It's going to die just like all of the new payment methods that have come out recently and are due to come out so
Not to mention that I'd as soon sweep tiger cages for a living as do financial transactions through Google.
negative according to the study, since they still havent hit breakpoint.
I thought that was funny when I read your post, but actually you are right, according to the article China is still behind on the polluter curve. If new technology (fusion, batteries + wind) becomes viable, they may never hit breakpoint.
I think the study's methodology is highly suspect.
What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita.
The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon.
But what about the bitwise media, as opposed to the hardware media? OP asked about that as well.
It seems obvious that lossless compression is preferable to no compression, and an open-source algorithm should be used. (Like lossless PNGs for stills, FLAC for audio. Video is still kind of up for grabs, and one might have to settle for lossy compression.)
For very long-term storage, you'd want to have the source code for your decompression/display software.
M.disc, as opposed to standard CD or DVD, is expressly intended for long-term storage and retrieval.
See my example above regarding bcrypt vs PBKDF2.
Both are open-source. Both are completely public. But PBKDF2 has been through a completely public security audit. Bcrypt has not.
Someone trying to push public encryption standards that wouldn't pass audit won't get very far.
But government has pushed encryption standards that not only weren't openly audited, but not even publicly available for study.
Given a choice, which one would you trust? The guy who says "pick one of these", and let's you look at them and pick them up and feel them, or the guy who keeps them in a locked box and won't even show you to them first?
I know my choice.
At some point you do have to trust somebody. But who?
Should you trust the coder in the next cubicle over who blindly swallowed stories about the "security" of bcrypt, without any actual evidence?
Or should you trust the government?
Or should you trust the private-sector experts, like Schneier or Adelman?
At some point you have to either study it in-depth yourself, or take someone's word for the ultimate security. But not JUST taking someone's word, and certainly just not coder X at some conference. You can get explanations of how open-source encryption works.
The above should have read:
... nothing to do WITH either bragging or censorship.
and
You DO NOT legally get to say whatever you want...
Jane/Lonny Eachus hasn't retracted his endless Sky Dragon Slayer claims, and continues to spread Slayer misinformation.
Bullshit. What "slayer misinformation" do you pretend I "continue" to spread? Just another lie. You seem to have no respect for the truth whatsoever.
But that's probably asking the impossible
What is asking for the impossible, is asking me to stop doing something I'm not doing.
But that's probably asking the impossible, because Jane/Lonny Eachus is so brainwashed that he went above and beyond the call of duty by joining Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan in blaming his teenage victim, and wrongly insisted that none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer club) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing. If Jane/Lonny Eachus really isn't a Sky Dragon Slayer, at the very least he'd retract his mistaken claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, and admit that Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan is an admitted pedophile.
More blatant lies, with utter disregard to what you know to be the truth. Here were my actual words. The rest of your nonsense is links to other sources, or you quoting yourself again.
To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well.
Note the words "to the best of my knowledge". O'Sullivan had been accused of improper conduct, but was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. As for any other non-criminal conduct in his personal life, I have no knowledge or interest whatsoever.
Further, as I indicated to you, the only person of whom I was aware, who could possibly be the subject of your ranting was O'Sullivan. So imagine my surprise when you linked to a page about someone named Manuel who was completely unknown to me. Further yet, as I told you at the time, I had no idea who were "members" of the Sky Dragon Slayers, nor did I care, nor was I a member myself. So you knew all this, yet posted all this bullshit anyway.
So what is your point here? Some kind of attempt to show guilt by association? Some kind of attempt at sexual harassment? Because I have never so much as met any of these people, and I didn't even know of the existence of some of them until YOU pointed them out to me.
Jane, are you still confused about why you aced your hypocrisy final by bragging about how you've been desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others?
Another of your outrageous distortions. Mentioning that I discussed your legal transgressions with an attorney has absolutely nothing to do either bragging or censorship.
But as the Supreme Court has said many times, your "freedom of speech" is limited. You legally get to say whatever you want, about whoever you want, under any circumstances, with gross disregard for the truth.
As usual, you just whine that context is missing without explaining how you could possibly believe yourself when you said "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."
Nobody is whining. I am certainly accusing.
Many times, in many places, I have clearly stated that of course the ocean is rising. If in one time and one place you thought I meant something else, then the CONTEXT of that statement must have been misunderstood or missing. You already know I don't believe the ocean is not rising at all, but you use your out-of-context distortions to make it appear that I did. That's lying.
Don't you realize that being completely unwilling to back up your lies with actual calculations is indistinguishable from your being completely unable to perform even the most basic tests for acceleration in a dataset?
You cited Church and White, but I have more that say it ISN'T accelerating. I have many counterexamples, but I only need one. Church and White (2011) found a minuscule acceleration (0.009 cm / year ^-2), while others have found larger DEcelerations. Houston and Dean (2011), though their error bars are somewhat larger, Watson (2011), etc.
No dishonesty here. I have evidence for the things I say.